Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ten years ago...What happened in Rwanda and where was the UN then?
Supporting Survivors of the Rwandan Genocide ^

Posted on 01/01/2005 12:12:13 AM PST by Robert Lomax

Statictics of the Genocide

Over the course of only 100 days, a stupefying 1,000,000 people were slaughtered.

During this terrible slaughter of the innocent, more than 6 men, women and children were murdered every 60 seconds of every hour of every day. This brutally efficient pace was kept up for more than 3 months.

An estimated 11% of all females, or approximately 535,000 women, living in Rwanda at the time of the genocide were victims of a concerted rape campaign.

During the course of the rape campaign, an average of 4 women were violently sexually assaulted, most of them by HIV+ men, every minute of every hour of every day for 100 consecutive days.

More than 67% of women who were raped in 1994 during the genocide are now facing death from AIDS.

As a direct result of the 100 days of death and violence in 1994 there are more than 60,000 widows living in Rwanda, caring for more than 200,000 orphans.

Otherwise stated, 3.25% of the total Rwandan population are orphans whose parents died from AIDS.

By the end of 2001, there were 500,000 people in Rwanda living with HIV – approximately 13% of the population.

That equates to more than 1 out of every 10 people suffering from HIV or AIDS.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: rwanda; tsunami; un; unitednations
Where was the UN? Where was the Billary administration in helping these victims?
1 posted on 01/01/2005 12:12:14 AM PST by Robert Lomax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Robert Lomax

Kofi has blood all over his hands for this too.


2 posted on 01/01/2005 12:21:53 AM PST by RWR8189 (Its Morning in America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert Lomax
And it ain't over yet.
3 posted on 01/01/2005 12:26:24 AM PST by endthematrix ("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert Lomax

Where was the Billary Administration? They were busy working with Koffi to keep the word "genocide" out of the official UN report on the situation, if I recall correctly. (If I'm wrong please correct--thanks.)


4 posted on 01/01/2005 12:27:51 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Rand-ie, you're a fine girl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert Lomax

Where was the media and where was clinton and where was his administration.


5 posted on 01/01/2005 12:28:44 AM PST by malia (a cherished constitutional right -- the right to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

I wish I had a copy of the New American article detailing Kofi's perfidy to post. Does anyone?


6 posted on 01/01/2005 12:29:39 AM PST by Iconoclast2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

You're completely right.

1 million people were dying, and there was a Clinton State Department was scared to death of using the word genocide.

Kofi willfully ignored direct reports from the ground that there was a massive genocide underway.

Simply disgusting.


7 posted on 01/01/2005 12:47:52 AM PST by RWR8189 (Its Morning in America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Robert Lomax

And the drop in CO² emissions was how much? Surely some green wacko scientists have calculated this?


8 posted on 01/01/2005 1:03:37 AM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
I'm as much for keeping the US out of foreign entanglements as anyone, but considering that the freaking UN is SUPPOSED to deal with these situations, and from what I recall a relatively small force was on the ground and could have kept the warring parties separated, this makes all that demmiedummie worship of the UN hollow and meaningless.

The purpose of the UN is to intervene and prevent such situations--prevent genocide-- and stop regional conflicts from spiralling into mass slaughter without having individual nations do the work and create more conflict. The UN is an utter failure in this regard. And yet the Albright crowd whines when Bush has no use for this organization that exists to spend per diem from their home nations and to give America the finger.

9 posted on 01/01/2005 1:26:11 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Rand-ie, you're a fine girl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2; All

"I wish I had a copy of the New American article detailing Kofi's perfidy to post. Does anyone?"

As close as I could get:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/un/index.htm


THE NEW AMERICAN: Issues in Focus
United Nations


10 posted on 01/01/2005 1:40:34 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Robert Lomax; cyborg; RWR8189; Darkwolf377; endthematrix; malia; Iconoclast2; Waco; backhoe; ...
Rwanda was by far the biggest failure of the UN to date. Millions of people were being slaughtered and the United Nations did everything they could to avoid even mentioning the Rwandan situation. Full scale genocide occuring, with the perpetrators being armed with nothing more than machetes (and thus not presenting a major military threat ....even for the UN), and yet nothing was done. They did not even attempt to pass their ubiquitous 'resolutions' on the matter.

The situation in the Sudan that is currently going on is yet another example of how ineffective (i say corrupt .....because IF they wanted to do something they could) the UN is. There people are being enslaved, murdered, mutilated, maimed etc etc, and the UN yet has the time to debaye about including the Sudan in certain committees!

The UN is not ineffective. It is just corrupt. A lot of good could be done if the right people made the right decisions, but for decades it has just been undergoing a series of serious atrophy.

I could talk about Clinton not doing a thing (and yet finding the impetus to go to Kosovo and messing things up there), but he did not have a mandate to do anything about Rwanda. He SHOULD have ...but he was not elected for that. He had a moral obligation, but the US does not HAVE to do anything. It is like the current Tsunami situation in Asia. America is helping ....but it does not HAVE to help. However it is the right/moral thing to do, and it is great that it is doing something (and although the media may not appreciate the amount of money given you can betcha that the starving injured and overwhelmed in the tidal-striken parts of Asia are grateful beyond words. A single dollar goes a long way there).

HOWEVER the UN has a mandate and call to be involved in matters and situations such as the Rwandese and Sudanese scenarios.

And the UN did nothing!

The League of Nations failed in its given mandate with the break-out of the 2nd World War, and it could be as easily said that its successor (the United Nations) failed with the Rwandan massacres (and the failure continues today with the Sudanese situation that has been going on now for years).

And yet the UN has the time to participate in the Oil for Food scandal when Saddam was in power!

11 posted on 01/01/2005 2:17:57 AM PST by spetznaz (Jesus never fails.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

They just need more power....and money...

HAPPY NEW YEAR KOFI! (Your son)


12 posted on 01/01/2005 2:26:55 AM PST by endthematrix ("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
The UN is not ineffective. It is just corrupt.

The problem as I see it is that any nation can join. Seems to me it would be better for only nations with regularly held free elections, leaving out the tinhorn dictators and totalitarian thugs, with whom a majority of the corruption resides.

A UN made up of the free nations of the world would be strong enough to run things their own way and delegitimize the despots.

It all sounds nice in theory anyway.

13 posted on 01/01/2005 2:28:28 AM PST by squidly (I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosity he excites among his opponents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix

More money and/or power would only mean more corruption. I honestly don't know how the entity can be fixed because it only seems to get worse every decade.


14 posted on 01/01/2005 2:38:46 AM PST by spetznaz (Jesus never fails.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
Great post. I appreciate you mentioning that the US doesn't HAVE to do the things we do, but it's right we do them. The rest of the world seems to have this a bit messed up--when they want us to, we HAVE to act. One instance of not meeting this standard would be squawked about for decades.

And as you say this is precisely the thing the UN was created to deal with, and doesn't. One can only guess why the members are so reluctant to fulfill the organization's purpose.

15 posted on 01/01/2005 2:44:05 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Rand-ie, you're a fine girl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

That was complete sarcasm. I say dismantle the whole global whorehouse.


16 posted on 01/01/2005 2:47:06 AM PST by endthematrix ("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
"One can only guess why the members are so reluctant to fulfill the organization's purpose."

Because the UN is a globalist pipe dream and is a WAR MAKING mechanism. Totally contrary to is aims.

17 posted on 01/01/2005 2:51:11 AM PST by endthematrix ("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: squidly
The reasons for establishing the UN at that time were noble and arguably necessary. As with most organizations, particularly governmental and quasi-governmental, the UN began to expand the reasons for its existence and to exert greater influence while becoming more bureaucratic, but the problem is the UN is not a democratic organization inasmuch as it is not subject to popular vote and, therefore, is not truly accountable.

As the UN has aged, the people appointed to the more senior positions have been more and more socialistic in their outlook and in their actions. It is as if the communistist internationale has been taken over by the UN.

18 posted on 01/01/2005 3:07:47 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

You are correct. The approach was to talk about killing or even murder, but never genocide. In fact, Bill Clinton sent his Secretary of State (Madeline Albright) to the U. N. to argue for delaying any decision for meaningful intervention, thereby allowing the genocide to continue.


19 posted on 01/01/2005 3:12:34 AM PST by Pharlap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix

What started out as a place to meet and end conflicts has turned into a place that dictates terms of conduct. *&^%$ that.


20 posted on 01/01/2005 3:21:23 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Rand-ie, you're a fine girl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pharlap

If it meant a huge war machine (mostly US forces of course) I would have been for debate and discussion, but from all I've read there was already a sufficient force on the ground to prevent the situation BEFORE it got going, and Koffi personally ordered that the commander on the ground (Canadian?) not even threaten or simply protect--being a UN group that's probably all that had to be done. ALbright is a disgrace.


21 posted on 01/01/2005 3:23:24 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Rand-ie, you're a fine girl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
The US, unilaterally has historically held that power, but gave most of it away. We look to the international community for consensus.
22 posted on 01/01/2005 3:27:32 AM PST by endthematrix ("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

"A 2,500-member United Nations force sought authorization under the United Nations charter to stop the killing. The United Nations commander in Rwanda at the time, Canadian Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, said last month that if he had had the mandate, the massacres would have ceased.

Giving Dallaire the authority and the troops that he requested "could have stopped the whole thing," said Morton Halperin, a National Security Council staff member in 1994,

But the Clinton administration opposed the move. The United Nations had to learn "when to say no," President Clinton said at the time."

(March 26, 1998 NY Times)

Any sourcing to Kofi on this?


23 posted on 01/01/2005 3:35:21 AM PST by endthematrix ("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Robert Lomax

Must have been because we're all so stingy.


24 posted on 01/01/2005 7:40:03 AM PST by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: malia
Just do not forget this atrocity happened during the Clintons' presidency:

"In 1995, SPC New disobeyed what he believed to be an illegal order to wear an United Nations uniform and to deploy into Macedonia on what he believed to be an illegal deployment, under a general officer from Finland. Michael New believed those orders to be a violation of Army regulations and of his Constitutional rights as a Citizen-Soldier. Michael New was court-martialed in 1996 and given a Bad Conduct Discharge." www.michaelnew.com

http://www.unwatch.com/index
25 posted on 01/01/2005 6:41:45 PM PST by purpleland (The price of freedom is vigilance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

I dimly recall that the situation was far worse than mere incompetence. I recall that the UN man on the ground said that if they didn't give one of the two tribes weapons (locked up in the African equivalent of gun control), it was going to get massacred, and that Kofi Annan was directly involved in the decision to reject the recommendations of the man on the ground, but I can't find the article that laid it all out anywhere.


26 posted on 01/02/2005 4:50:48 PM PST by Iconoclast2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
In some ways the UN should be charged with aiding and abetting crimes against humanity in Rwanda and the Sudan. It is interesting how they can raise a ruckuss over what happened in Abu Ghraib prison .....yet they find it apparently alright to turn their backs to what happened in Rwanda and what is happening in the Sudan!

After all, what is worse. A few US soldiers putting panties on the heads of susupected terrorists/enemy combatants, or a million dead and millions more maimed, raped and otherwise oppressed. Which is worse .....some soldier breaking protocol and taking pictures of naked prisoners, or thousands of children getting their arms hacked off and millions of women raped?

The UN should be more than ashamed. Especially when they can find the time to root out the earth over a few cases of a few US soldiers breaking rules in some forsaken prison yet apparently have their hands tied when real issues are happening.

27 posted on 01/02/2005 5:58:54 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear tipped ICBMs: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
Great post. I appreciate you mentioning that the US doesn't HAVE to do the things we do, but it's right we do them. The rest of the world seems to have this a bit messed up--when they want us to, we HAVE to act. One instance of not meeting this standard would be squawked about for decades.

I can tell you this. The US is appreciated more than the media would let you believe. True, there are whole regions of the earth that believe the US is evil incarnate (for example virtually all of the Arab world) due to perpetual indoctrination by the theological and political demagogues, however there are many other areas where the common man and woman appreciates the US. For example the Asian situation .....the people receiving bottled water from the US, or hot food, or urgent medication are grateful. In Indonesia for example (which is the world's largest Muslim nation) the imams may be spewing forth anti-American vitriol, and the ruling elite may be harboring views that would not put a smile on Lady Liberty, BUT you can be certain that the people afflicted by the tragedy are grateful.

And while there will always be those who say the US 'should' do more or that it 'has' to do this and that, you should be grateful for that. Why? Because such asinine statements mean that there is something irking them. It is like having your neighbors being envious about your house, spouse, car, occupation etc. It only means that you are blessed more than they are!

Such people (eg the media in the US and Europe, the elite in Europe, liberals in the US, theologues and demagogues in the Middle-East et al) will always have a bone to pick with the US (or any power that is greater than they are). Thus the very fact that they whimper and gripe is a good thing. I'd be more worried if they were to stop.

28 posted on 01/02/2005 6:09:40 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear tipped ICBMs: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
I see your point, but it's a litle too neat. I think there are as many reasons for their bitching as there are bitchees. If the US were flat broke they'd still be bitching.

Good observations though and thanks for posting them.

29 posted on 01/02/2005 6:13:41 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (Rand-ie, you're a fine girl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Robert Lomax

I just saw the movie Hotel Rwanda and I'm still in shock that the world did nothing. Nothing.


30 posted on 05/05/2005 4:34:49 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: endthematrix
I heard Gen. Dallaire speak last month and was very, very impressed. His book, Shake Hands With The Devil, is one of the more disturbing treatments of an incident that I didn't know enough about. There were 350,000 dead at the point he pleaded for 5000 troops, and for two excruciating months, heard...nothing. When they did arrive they were a contingent of Ethiopians who had just been through their own civil war and were wearing uniforms for the first time. At that point 850,000 had died.

Gen. Dallaire stated that the single most fatal decision leading up to that point was the retreat from Somolia, which gave terrorists the world over the idea that the peacekeepers were a legitimate target and that they would withdraw if attacked. He then stunned the audience (it was a "Peace Conference") by (1) praising the U.S. intervention in Iraq, and (2) praising the American people for tolerating casualties there. Wasn't quite what they'd thought they were going to hear.

He ended his talk with Darfur and an admonition for the U.S. to "kick some asses" in certain prominent UN member countries in order to get them to contribute trained troops to interventions. His own country, Canada, was among them. (The Canadian consul was sitting right there, too - he took it well...)

33 posted on 05/05/2005 5:00:33 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: vic heller

I'm talking about the whole world..the UN.


34 posted on 05/05/2005 5:08:10 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson